SRI. RAM AND ANOTHER Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Appellants have been convicted Under Ss. 399 and 402 IPC aad 25(A) Arms Act and sentenced to seven years' R.I. and five years' RI and two years' RI respectively.

(2.) The prosecution case was that the Appellants had assembled on the night between 20th and 21st of March 1963 in a grove situated in village Ijaur Police Station Qaimganj in the District of Farrukhabad together with a number of other persons with the object of committing dacoity, and they were arrested by a police party organized by Sri Jaipal Singh SI (P.W. 1). The SI, posted at Police; Station Kaimganj, had received information at about 8.15 P.M. through an informer that the gang of Shri Pal Lodha consisting of 10 or 12 dacoits was to assemble in the grove in question in order to commit dacoity at the house of Ram Ghulam Brahman situated at a distance of 2 to 3 miles from the village where the assembly was to take place. The SI immediately collected a police force and some licence holders and proceeded to the place where the assembly was to take place. The party divided itself into three, and found the dacoits already assembled. From the conversation over heard, it became quite clear that their intention was to commit dacoity. When they were about to start, after the duties had been distributed amongst themselves, very light pistols were filed and the dacoits surrounded. The members of the assembly did not put up any resistance, but, on the other hand, tried to run away. Two of them were caught on the spot and are the Appellants before me. Some of the others Who are alleged to have escaped were also put up for trial but acquitted.

(3.) The arguments put forward before the trial court assailing the prosecution version have been repeated before me. I, however, find myself in agreement with the answers given by the trial court on each of the arguments advanced. No fresh argument has been advanced before me. It was argued, after reading out from the judgment the contentions put forward before the trial court, that the learned Sessions judge was not justified in not giving the benefit of doubt to the Appellants. In fact, the learned Sessions Judge, took into account even matters which could not, properly speaking, be taken into account in attacking the veracity of the prosecution witnesses. A judgment (Ex. Kha 1) containing certain observations against certain persons who appeared as witnesses in another case was relied upon on behalf of the Appellants to assail the veracity of the prosecution witness Sajjad, a gun licencee . I do not think that it is possible to consider the contents of a judgment relating to other persons belonging to the family of Sajjad Husain in order to show that Sajjad Hussain is a professional witness together with other members of his family who appeared for the police regularly. The trial court was only concerned with the veracity of witnesses before the court. Nothing could be found wrong with the statement of Sajjad Husain except that he had appeared several times to support the prosecution cases. It should be presumed that he spoke the truth on each occasions unless the contrary is shown. The contrary was not, by anything on record proved against Sajjad Hussain.